Appeal 6001612

Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement and updating of advertised public call box at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20251342, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings submitted within the SITE PLAN & IMAGES document ([name]: A02939).

Appeal B is allowed and express consent is granted for the installation of one internally illuminated digital LCD screen to a telephone kiosk as applied for. The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in the Regulations, and the following additional

The development hereby permitted shall be operated and managed according with the information contained within General Product Information and [name] sections found within the submitted [name] document. The operation and management of the development shall be carried out for the lifetime of the development.

Appeal A concerns the refusal of planning permission to erect an advertised public call box. Appeal B concerns the refusal of express consent to display advertisements on the call box as proposed under Appeal A. As they are intrinsically linked and raise similar issues, I have combined both decisions into a single decision letter.

The main issue is the effect of the proposals upon the visual amenity of the area.

The appeal site lies outside the [name] on [name]. This section of [name] forms part of a pedestrianised zone where vehicular access is limited to authorised deliveries controlled by rising bollards. In this location, there is a distinctly modern commercial character, with a variety of business uses at ground-floor level and buildings that exhibit a pronounced vertical emphasis. During my site visit, I also observed that this part of the streetscape also accommodates a variety of advertisements. Within this streetscape and the wider area, a range of street furniture of differing heights are present, including vehicle bollards, bicycle racks, litter bins, and road signage. As such, a modern structure of this proposed height would not appear unusual in this context.

I note the Council’s position that the proposal would contribute to ‘street clutter’. However, the development would be located adjacent to an existing arrangement of benches, litter bins, cycle racks, and street trees. In this context, its siting and alignment which would be parallel to the delivery vehicle access route along [name] would allow it to relate appropriately to the established street furniture. It would not be positioned so close to these features, or to the [name], as to create a cramped or disjointed arrangement or impede accessibility to the adjoining shopfronts.

Collectively, the proposed advertisement display and the physical form of the call box would not appear out of place or unduly prominent within this modern commercial streetscape, where contemporary street furniture, tall buildings, and advertisement displays are established features. The development would maintain a similar visual relationship with the surrounding contemporary built form.

Based on the foregoing assessment, in relation to Appeal A, the proposed call box would not be harmful to the visual amenity of the area. Therefore, it would be in accordance with Policy 3: [name] of the Leicester City Local Development Framework [name] 2014. Specifically, this policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that development complements the visual amenity of an area by reason of its scale, position, quality, character, and design.

With regard to Appeal B, I have taken into consideration Policy 3, as it seeks to ensure that development is complementary to the visual amenity of an area and therefore is material in this case. The proposed development, as far as it is a material consideration for Appeal B, would accord with Policy 3 of the Leicester City Local Development Framework [name] 2014.

With specific regard to Appeal A, in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition which relate to the commencement of the development [1] and the approved plans [2]. With regard to Appeal B, the operation and management of the advertisement [1] is necessary, in the interests of maintaining public safety through the management of the kiosk.

The Council has suggested a condition requiring the removal of the structure if it is unused for three calendar months. I consider a three‐month period to be unreasonably short, and I am not persuaded that such a timeframe could be effectively enforced, as it would necessitate continuous monitoring. I also note that the structure would accommodate an advertisement display and would therefore be in use. Accordingly, I am not convinced that the condition is necessary, and in any event, it would fail to meet several of the six tests for planning conditions.

For the reasons given above, both appeals should be allowed.